When did you guys stop being lolberts? I think I was in my mid twenties
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
The state, or the nation, guided by religion, is the primary unit of social and ethical analysis. It was like this since prehistoric chiefdoms and nothing ever changed. This is how humans function. Putting the individual before community is how we got here in the first place. In nature, if you put yourself before community, you'd simply die. In civilized society, mass quantities of people putting themselves before community causes the civilization to die. We are collectivist creatures by nature, God made us that way. If you don't identify as a collective in some capacity at the very least, everything will fall apart. Even individualist libertarians must identify as a sort of collectivist too, however, because they associate with each other as their own collective community. So they are not free from what their nature as a human binds them towards no matter how hard they try.
That isn't to say that everyone should be a complete hivemind of the same thoughts and opinions, of course, some individualism is necessary for people to live their lives. But as a society we should be mostly collectivist, and be concerned with the necessities of the collective before individual desires, and a vast majority of times in a high trust society, putting into said collective comes out with you ending up in a better position in all aspects of your personal life, more than you could do by yourself. I would say 70% collectivist and 30% individualist is how a good society should be. This certainly excludes lolbertarianism. Selfishness is for jews.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed
I think we went wrong when we lost that distinction.
Simply put, we cannot survive if we do not look out for one another. This is the most base instinct on the planet, even niggers can fully comprehend it, but somehow the western world has just forgotten about it due to specific strains of enlightenment ideology (definitely *not* all of it though, a common misconception, but the theories engendered by anglo-centric liberalism in particular. The "collectivist and statist" liberalism arising from france ironically forms the primary backbone against it, even if not envisioned by its authors and philosophers. This is where people like Mussolini, Hitler, and JAPR among others can find their deepest ancestral ideological roots)
The way I see it is as follows: literally everything is based on enlightenment era liberalism in some variety. Genuine reaction is utterly moribund. So which one do you choose? The "anglo-dutch" liberalism of being in perpetual antagonism towards the state, liberty *in spite of* the state? Or do you fall into the camp of "romance" liberalism, where liberty is engendered by the state which executes whatever is in the best interests of its constituents? The former is bound to result in a low trust and negative society no matter what, because if it creates in people, by default, a hatred towards the state and its institutions, the state will respond in turn by hating its people, and it empowers people who are asocial and all other sorts of bad actors because it rewards this behavior. The latter is volatile and can end in absolute catastrophe when it is used in the hands of bad actors, such as the bolsheviks, but it can also create beauty and renewed vigor for a nation and its people, such as fascism et al.
Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed